January 27, 2004 by s.z.

#5: Andrew Sullivan For so many reasons.  Here's a small but telling one: EMAIL OF THE DAY: "I go to Lucianne.com when I want to feel like I belong. I go to Andrew Sullivan when I want the painful truth. Thank you. Never stop." Andrew, if your fans feel like they belong at Lucianne.com, then you are attracting some pretty disturbed and deluded people, and it's bizarre that you would want to brag about it. 6:11:17 AM

comment [] trackback []

#4: Young Conservatives! At least the ones who haunt Young Conservatives: The Domain of Young Conservatism. This time in the domain we have Ryan Thompson, their Editor in Chief, selecting Zell Miller as this month's "Conservative in Focus."  Zell was chosen for this honor because he is a "member of a dying breed within the Democratic Party."  Yes, Republicans ARE a dying breed within the Democratic Party. From his humble roots, Senator Miller has earned the respect of many Georgians and Americans alike due to his desire to represent the wants and needs of the common American. Um, sure, Ryan.  Whatever it was you just said.  Anyway, Ryan was so impressed with Zell that he chose A National Party No More for his Young Conservative book review of the month.  What he liked best about the book is that Zell uses it to "take his party to the woodshed."  He likes that part so much that he repeats the phrase four times within his short review.  But maybe that's Zell's fault -- Ryan says that Zell says it all throughout the book.  Zell is just drawn to woodsheds, I guess, and that captivates Ryan. Ryan also likes A National Party No More because of Zell's average personality, and because Zell has many views, the majority of which have been highly successful. With his average American personality, Senator Miller states his record as a politician from his first office to his current post representing Georgia in the US Senate.  The Senator explains his views on many issues of the day by stating why he thinks that way, and why the vast majority of them have been highly successful. Also, the Senator takes time to state why his party has not followed his lead, and how it continues to ignore the populace by acting in a partisan manner not seen in American history. Yes, if only the Democrats would follow Zell's lead, we could stop these unprecedented partisan politics, and all be in the same party.  Thanks, Ryan, for sharing Zell's wisdom, and thanks, Sean Hannity, for recommending it to Ryan.  We'll get back at Sean later. The February issue of "Young Conservatives" also gives us a new column by Judson Cox, the young man who alerted us to fact that cloned pandas represent the second most serious threat to our civilization.  This time he writes about the "Failures of Feminism".  For instance, feminists want women to be equal to men, but "absolute equality is impossible." Women are better than men at some things, from nurturing children to applying eye makeup while driving. Such disparities don’t bother me; perhaps I should take a Men’s Studies class (if such courses existed). Hey, if Judson isn't jealous of women's genetic superiority at applying eye makeup while driving, then women have no cause to be jealous of men holding the vast majority of leadership positions in business and government. And it's true that men make more money than women, but that's genetic too: There is income disparity between genders; men generally earn a little more than women. Much of this is due to feminine dominance in the fields of social work, education and nursing, while jobs that pay significantly higher are mostly held by men. Even with the same job title and position, men tend to earn more over time. This is mainly because women are more likely to take maternity leave, suspend their careers to raise children, pass up a promotion to spend time with their children or leave their profession when they marry. If our laws required women to alter their career goals, we would have a society that discriminates against women. However, individual women make these choices due to biology. Yup, it's just biology that forces women to make career-diminishing choices, and so there's nothing we can do about it -- nature intends women to make less money than men.  And it IS true that women are more likely to take maternity leave than men, and for that, there is no one to blame but biology! And Judson often hears from readers in Islamic nations, and THEY aren't feminists.  They ADMIRE America. They realize that America is morally superior because we protect the freedoms and rights of each of our citizens. They begin to view our soldiers as liberators. Like the youth of Iran, they understand their only hope for a better way of life is to embrace Americanism. Yeah, that's every nation's dream: Americanism! The most average, blue collar American Joe, who serves his country, works his job, raises his family, pays his taxes, votes, drives a gas guzzling truck, shops at Wal-Mart and puts a few bucks in the collection plate, does more to help the poor and oppressed of the world than the sum total of all feminists and liberals, with their “gender neutral” politically correct speech codes, have or ever will. Well, there you have it.  I don't know exactly what it means, but it sounds pretty definitive.  Thanks, Young Conservatives, for allowing us to visit your domain. 5:37:47 AM

#3:  Peggy Noonan For claiming she has Democratic friends, and for giving them voting advice, and for advising them what she and her ilk will take in a Democratic President. And so my Democratic friends, patriots who vote Democratic and are voting in today's primary and the ones down the road.  Please.  We will take Joe Lieberman or John Kerry or even young John Edwards, men who appear to be somewhere in the normal range.  We need a person who could rally the nation on a terrible day, and who could arguably meet the security demands the age requires.  We can't afford flip-outs, or people who are too obviously creepy.  Thanks, Peg.  I never would have thought of not casting my ballot for flip-outs or obvious creeps without you. 4:52:26 AM

Idiot #2: Bill O'Reilly Again.  But this time with support from the NRO's Rod Dreher. For another reason why Bill is an idiot, we refer you to the transcript of Friday's O'Reilly Factor, and Bill's defense of Mel Gibson in The Affair of the Disappearing Pope Quote.  [Note: Mel Gibson's production company has optioned Bill's novel (the one with the hilarious sex scenes).  Bill is a very strong supporter of Mel's movie.  Not that there's any connection, of course.] BILL O'REILLY, HOST:  In the "Personal Story" segment tonight, actor Mel Gibson continues to be viciously attacked for his upcoming film "The Passion" about the death of Jesus.  Columnist Frank Rich in "The New York Times," and writer Tim Rutten of "The Los Angeles Times," both of accused Gibson of pretty much every heinous act ever committed. Yup.  They accused Mel of bestiality.  Incest.  Regicide.  Starring in Bird on a Wire.  And Frank Rich even said he wanted Mel dead, his dog dead, and his intestines on a stick!  No wait, maybe that was the other way around.  But anyway, Rich and Rutten were mean to Mel, and Bill just isn't going to put up with that kind of thing. O'REILLY: Joining us now from Dallas is Rod Dreher, editorial writer for "The Dallas Morning News."  He's been following this story. This is, I think, very outrageous, although I would like Rutten to put forth his point of view.  It seems that his own newspaper had information the pope did say that "The Passion" is as it was.  OK?  That Rutten had to know that if he did any kind of research or he read his own newspaper.  Yet Rutten comes this week and calls Gibson a liar, putting false words in the pontiff's mouth.  How do you react? Well, I'm not Rod Dreher, but I too have been following this story.  And the LA Times did NOT have information that the pope said that The Passion "is at it was."  What they had was, per Lorenzo Minos and Larry Stammer, a 19 December email purportedly from from Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls, saying that what Peggy Noonan said that producer Steve McEveety said that the pope’s private aide, Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwisz, said that the pope said, was accurate -- he thought.  Note that Peg story's came out on the 17th, and the pope is sick and Dziwisz is hard to pin down, so Navarro-Valls might not have checked with anybody before replying to the LA Times inquiry.  Also note that Navarro-Valls and Alberto Michelini (father of Jan Michelini, the movie's associate producer) are both leading members of the Catholic traditionalist organization Opus Deiis.  It was through Jan Michelini's ties to Navarro-Valls that Mel got the pope to watch his movie in the first place.  Jan Michelini was there when McEveety met with Dziwisz and got the pope's reaction to the film.  So, Navarro-Valls might have assumed that Jan Michelini (his colleague's son, after all) and his associates wouldldn't lie or anything, and would have replied that the quote probably was accurate -- as far as he knew. But a week after Peggy's story appeared, a "senior Vatican official close to the pope" told the Catholic News Service that the pope made no comment on the film.  "The Holy Father does not comment, does not give judgments on art," he announced.  And of course, last week Dziwisz flatly stated that the Pope had said nothing about the movie, and that he had conveyed as much to McEveety.  So, it's not like the LA Times had proof that the pope said "It is as it was," and Tim Rutten disregarded it in order to attack Mel Gibson, because Rutten really hates him for being a Christian and a Patriot.  Well, it does in Bill's world, but he's an idiot, after all. Anyway, Rod comes on the show and says that Rutton's story shows how nasty Mel's enemies are, and that the Vatican is also being bad, what with the "lying" and the throwing Mel Gibson "to the wolves." Bill disagrees about the Vatican having their pants on fire, and claims that Navarro-Valls told the truth in December, but is now backing away from Gibson because the Vatican doesn't want to get involved in the anti-Semitism controversy.  Bill, a product of Catholic school, will go as far as saying that the Vatican isn't supporting Mel the way they should, but he won't risk his immortal souls by saying it LIED. But Rod would.  He's probably a Baptist or something. DREHER:  No, no, Bill, I would, and I'll tell you why.  Navarro-Valls did, we know this now from "The L.A. Times," from ["Wall Street Journal" columnist] Peggy Noonan and from other sources that Navarro-Valls has confirmed back in December that the pope said this. Wrong-o, Rod.  What we know from Peggy is that back in December, Navarro-Valls sent her an email reading, "I don't have for now any other comment on this. I [sic] anything is said in the future I will send it to you."  That's hardly a confirmation in my book.  More like a "No comment." DREHER:  Somebody higher up decided that it wasn't convenient for the pope to have said this.  And so, Navarro-Valls has backed off this story and held Mel Gibson up in effect to ridicule.  And his reputation is at stake here, as you see from the Frank Rich attack and "The L.A. Times," attack.  I think Navarro-Valls told the truth the first time, but now he's backed away from it.  O'REILLY:  Well, when you say he's backed away, I haven't seen any  statements by the Vatican press secretary denying the pope said it.  He's just not sticking up for Gibson.  Um, Bill, last week Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwisz -- " the second-most powerful person in the Catholic church today," the only person who watched the movie with the pope, the guy who supposedly passed on to McEveety those five little words --informed Catholic News Service that the pope told no one his opinion of this film.  "I said clearly to McEveety and Michelini that the Holy Father made no declaration," the archbishop said. "I said the Holy Father saw the film privately in his apartment, but gave no declaration to anyone."  (Per Catholic World News, "Alan Nierob, a spokesman for Gibson, said Monday that there 'was no reason to believe' Archbishop Dziwicz's denial. "  Because even though he's the #2 guy in the Vatican, you shouldn't believe him if he contradicts MOVIE PEOPLE!) But back to Bill.  So, while the Vatican press secretary hasn't directly denied the quote (just the email telling Mel's people to use it on every chance they got), the only guy in a position to know what was said (other than the Pope), HAS denied it.  So, somebody is obviously lying.  And lying is a sin! And then Rod tells Bill about the email, purportedly from Navarro-Valls, which Gibson's people showed him.  He says that Navarro-Valls later told Rod that it was a fabrication, and that he never told Gibson to use "It is as it was" in his marketing campaign.  Bill acts like this is all news to him, and says, "So it's a mess."  Then they both conclude that Navarro-Valls is a weenie, and is backtracking from what he said earlier because the Vatican doesn't want the pope associated with a movie which some (misguided) Jews think is anti-Semitic.  And that the pure and saintly Gibson and his people have done nothing wrong, and they deserve our support and our ticket money. But as The Guardian says: Almost nobody emerges from the debacle with credit, and accusations of bad faith are surfacing. Did the Pope really say it, and if so, have his officials lied? If the remark was supposed to be private, has Icon Productions abused an ailing Pope's confidence by publicising it? Surely the Vatican could not be allowing the Pope to be exploited by Mel Gibson's formidable marketing operation. Could it? Well, the quote is prominently placed on The Passion of Christ website.  And Gibson's production company has issued a statement saying in part, "We received written permission to publicize the pope's comment on the film, 'It is as it was.' Unless we receive an official indication to the contrary, we will continue to stand by the statement." So, I guess the exploitation is going to proceed, no matter what the Vatican says now. 4:19:24 AM

Favorite Idiots for Today: Bill O'Reilly Part of a continuing series.  (Not ranked in order of idiocy, or any other particular order.) Bill, a longtime favorite idiot, makes the list today with his Talking Points Memo of Friday.  Bill uses his Memo to denounce Wes Clark for allowing people like Michael Moore to support him.  So let me get this straight.  General Clark is happy that Michael Moore is on his team and feels he doesn't have the responsibility to check out Moore's defamatory charges.  Do we have this right, general? Does Clark have the right to let Moore introduce him at rallies without investigating everything he says?  Yes, I think he does.  It's there in the Bill or Rights, along with freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom to run for President without Bill O'Reilly's approval.   And what about Peter Jennings, whom Bill congratulates for having stuck it to Clark?  Doesn't JENNINGS have the responsibility to check out the desertion/AWOL story before chiding Clark about Moore making reckless claims?  (See Orcinus, for a report on why the charge may not have been all that reckless.)   But for Bill, it's ultimately all about Bill. "Talking Points" has been saying over and over that political people who align themselves with radicals and smear merchants will never succeed.  And since Bill has said that, he has to make sure that Clark doesn't succeed, or Bill will have to apologize, and will never be able to trust the Bush administration again.  (BTW, now that David Kay has said he believes there never was a stockpile of WMDs in Iraq, do you think Bill is going to apologize to the nation like he said he would?) Those who hate America love Michael Moore. That's all you need to know.  Well, okay then.  If Bill says that's all I need to know, the matter is settled.  Clark is evil because the French like Michael Moore, and we should all vote for Mel Gibson for President. Once again, "Talking Points" believes Americans are entitled to any political opinion they wish to hold, but to denigrate their country, use slanderous tactics, and provide the haters of America with ammunition is simply disgraceful. "Stuart Smalley," Michael Moore and others like them should be ashamed, and so should General Clark for buying into this terrible trend.  Once again, Peter Jennings, congratulations. See, it's all about Bill.  Bill doesn't like Moore's "negative" tone when speaking about America, and Moore's book is outselling Bill's.  Therefore, Moore is a "danger to democracy," like Bill stated last month.  And we all know why Bill hates Al Franken (hates him so much that he won't even say his name anymore).  Bill is a hater.  I want Peter Jennings to grill George Bush on whether he had ever investigated O'Reilly's claims about how he and Hard Copy won two Peabody awards, and if not, how he could allow Bill to support him. 3:50:04 AM